Facts:
- W applied for financial relief pursuant to Part III of the MCA 1973 and pursuant to Schedule 1 to the CA 1989.
- During the proceedings, H appealed on a point of jurisdiction. H’s appeal was unsuccessful in the Court of Appeal and the published judgment was anonymised by reason of a reporting restriction.
- Upon conclusion of the substantive applications, Moor J discharged the Court of Appeal’s order for reporting restrictions.
- H appealed the decision on the basis that:
- his right to life under Article 2 of the ECHR was engaged and that Moor J had found as much;
- Moor J had not properly balanced a consideration of Article 8 and Article 10; and
- it runs contrary to s.97 of the CA 1989, which prohibits publication of material likely to identify any child in the proceedings.
Held:
- H’s appeal was dismissed.
- The Court of Appeal held that Moor J had not made a finding that Article 2 was engaged, and if he had done so, he would not have moved on to balance Article 8 and Article 10.
- It was unsatisfactory that H had not first sought to clarify Moor J’s findings prior to the appeal.
- The provisions of s.97 relate only to extant proccedings under the CA 1989; here they had been concluded.
- Although judgment was handed down prior to that in Norman v Norman [2017] EWCA Civ 49, the approach of Moor J was consonant with that of the Court of Appeal in Publication was therefore allowed, to the extent that it did not breach previous injunctions in the case.
